Why all the homo marriage surprise? There is nothing new under the sun.

Why the surprise at a continuing long-running trend?

This descent of the Supreme Court into utter nonsense didn't suddenly just go "poof" and pop out of a phony celebration cake. And it's not like it's the first time the Court legislated or unconstitutionally created entirely new federal law that didn't exist before. That's what they do; its what they have become accustomed to doing, and what they ever increasingly do, because they can, and because no one from the other two co-equal branches of federal government stops them. The fact of the matter is, the rest of the government is now just as nonsensical as the Court.

Part of the dumbing-down of the the American citizenry through Mal-education - Disinformation, indoctrination, etc. - and News Media propaganda, and "fashionable" Leftist trend-setting entertainment, has involved schmoozing us all into accepting the normalcy of the abnormal, the naturalness of the unnatural, the virtue found in vice, and even the non-existence of evil and sin. Beneath it all: belief in the "truth" of falsehood.

Even Judao-Christian religious doctrine has been similarly infected and malformed, to the point where love of neighbor is now expanded to include love of evil and love of sin, where no activity and no evildoer is ever to be reproved or anathematized or discriminated against.

There he goes again, blaming Marxism for everything.

Some of you accuse me of seeing a Marxist under every bed in America, and you're right about that. I do. But the Marxism that is now everywhere in our society and in our collective psyche is not the overt, out-in-the-open variety of yesterday, but a sly, deceptive form masquerading as something else. Here's how Professor Wessell described what I'm talking about in a comment after the Refuting Free Love page:

The relation between Marxism and the sexual revolution is closer than
one might think. Look up in internet "Cultural Marxism" (Prof. Lind et
al.) and the Frankfurt School of Social Research. Marxist (Luckas,
Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and others) developed a strategy of
attacking and culture and transforming its values as a foreplay to
revolution unto socialism. Freudiansim was fused with Marxism to
postulate the "sexually repressed" (= tradition religious ethics of
marriage) in place of the proletariat as the class to revolutionize. The
matter is too complicated for the few words of a comment. Today a
German Prof. Honneth at Columbia is continuing the Frankfurt School. The
point is to break down the family, sexualize society and divide society
into protesting groups (Black Studies, Feminism, etc.). Focusing on the
so-called superstructure (= cultural values) instead of Marx's
postulated substructure (economic structure) is the means used to
promote Marxism culturally.

That's what we're really up against. Cultural Marxism today not only dominates the Marxocrat Party and it's entire obviously anti-American and obviously anti-Christian political agenda. Cultural Marxism today infects the thinking of "Republicrat" politicians and "Conservative" thinkers. Most American Cultural Marxists do not even know that they are Cultural Marxists. Glenn Beck is a perfect example. He epitomizes the "Libertarian" form of the Cultural Marxist; and, quite typically, he doesn't even know it. His thinking has been successfully funneled toward individual liberty issues to the detriment of the larger American culture.

Glenn can say, in the same paragraph, sometimes even in the same sentence, that:

He is a strong believer in Objective, Absolute Truth, and the Moral Absolutes that stem from it; and,

He does not believe in imposing his morality on anyone, or anyone imposing their morality on him.

The first of Glenn's beliefs describes fixed, Objective Truth that exists and does not change. But the second of Glenn's beliefs describes moral relativism, which says that whatever any of us thinks is moral is moral for us, regardless of what Objective Truth says about it. These are opposites. They are incompatible, and irreconcilably opposed to each other. Objective Truth and Moral Relativism cannot coexist in the same social system. The mistaken belief that they can coexist represents, to me, the greatest success ever achieved in the whole Cultural Marxism movement.

There is either such a thing as right and wrong, or there is not.

The Libertarian approach to not imposing our moral code on others works well for relationships between a culture and other cultures, and between a culture and the whole outside world. But it cannot work well for human relationships within a specific civilized culture, such as American culture, without eventually breaking down and destroying the defining moral code of that culture. It is, after all, a commonly held moral code that makes a unique and identifiable people, identifiable because of an overwhelming majority willingly and voluntarily oriented in the same moral direction, without force. Representative civil law is only required to protect the moral majority from the minority violators of the common moral code.

The Fatal Error in Libertarianism and/or Social Issue Neutrality.

"Love of neighbor" cannot be expanded to include love of dedicated evil. "Tolerance" cannot be expanded to include tolerance of absolute intolerance. "Diversity" cannot be expanded to the point of eliminating homogeneity and good order in society. "Judgmentalism" cannot be expanded to the point of precluding common sense and simple adult judgment. If they are, then sooner or later the culture will lose any proper sense of what is right and what is wrong. And that is the goal of Cultural Marxism.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
my leg. --Thomas Jefferson

That quote of Jefferson might represent the most important foundation stone of Libertarianism. He was talking about maintaining religious liberty within a new nation of 13 States, each with its own officially declared Christian denomination. The new Federal government was to be precluded from picking one of them, or any other, as the official religion of the whole nation. It did not mean that he would favor anything approaching atheism being imposed upon the people from above, and it did not mean that he would favor any dangerous non-Christian religion, or any foreign morality, to be included and tolerated in America.

He was raised in a Christian household and held the Christian moral code, and lived by it. That means, at the least, recognition of the Commandments of God, and Scriptural prohibitions of behaviors, as exemplified by 1 Cor 6:9-10 and many others like it. But Jefferson was perhaps more lenient than most of his brethren at the time, for he favored simple castration for convicted sodomites and polygamists rather than death or life imprisonment.

Today, the fact that we abhor the Islamic murder of homosexuals does not mean that we should welcome, bless and approve open homosexuality as an acceptable and normal part of our Christian culture. We should stop the murders and we should protect the homosexuals; but we should not bless open homosexuality. 1 Cor 6:9-10 still says now what it said then. No matter how far Cultural Marxism advances here, or anywhere, those words will never change.

Is that judgmental? In John 7:24, the Lord tells us to judge; not as the world
judges, but to judge with right judgment. And in 2 Thes 3, among other
places, we are instructed to be apart from and have nothing to do with
those outside the teaching, that they may be ashamed until they return to the
way.

All the earlier Supreme Court unconstitutional legal precedents.

The Supreme Court has a long history of legislating from the bench. Because of this history of uncontested decisions, most people and most elected Representatives, Senators and Presidents seem convinced that the Court has a Constitutional right to do that. It does not. It never did. Legislating new law is the Constitutionally exclusive domain of the Congress. Signing new legislated law into existence, and executing the law, is the exclusive domain of the Presidency. Adjudicating law is the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The Constitution says so.

Adjudicating does not mean interpreting. It means sitting in judgment as the last court of appeal in criminal and civil cases. The Constitution nowhere grants the Court any special interpretive authority that in any way differs from than that of the other two co-equal branches of government. The Constitution is quite short, and it is written in quite simple and clear English, and it needs no special interpreters.

The Court is limited in what it can adjudicate, just as the Congress is limited in what it can legislate, just as the President is limited in what he can execute or prosecute, by Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. If it isn't in there, the Congress cannot legislate on it, the President cannot execute or prosecute it, and the Court cannot adjudicate it. It is not a federal case. It is a state or local issue, subject to local or state community standards, and no branch of the federal government has any jurisdiction over it. This is one of the main Constitutional principles the Marxocrat Party - I mean Cultural Marxism - must break down in order to gradually assume dictatorial control over the American government.

Separation of Church and State: 1947 Everson v Board of Education. The First Amendment Establishment and Exercise clauses place two restrictions on government, and no restrictions on anyone else. The government could not (1) establish an official national religion, and the government could not (2) interfere with anyone's open exercise of their religion. Very simple; nothing to it. Quite clear English. The Black Court did something very nearly the exact opposite of the intention of the Framers. Let me quote his decision from the Separation of Church and State page:

Justice Black, for the majority:

“The “establishment
of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a
state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away
from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or church attendance or
nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religions organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by laws was intended to erect a “wall of separation between
Church and State.”” (Emphasis added.)

He just made all that up out of thin air.

In point of fact, as President, Jefferson did all the very things Black said he intended to not do. He built a Catholic Church for the Indians and got them a Catholic Priest, with tax dollars. His "Wall of Separation" letter is included as a reference, to show how it was misquoted. This was an absolute twisting of the Constitutional meaning of the First Amendment in the interest of the not so gradual Secularizing - the religious cleansing - of the American people. Go to the link for the details.

Constitutional right to privacy: There is no such right in the Constitution, and privacy is not listed in Article One Section Eight. The Fourth Amendment right to security in our homes and personal "papers and effects" pertains more to private property than to blanket privacy. Here's how it came to be, via legal precedent, quoted from the Abortion in America page:

QUESTION: where
did this "Constitutional" right to privacy, upon which the brand new
"Constitutional" right to abortion is based, come from?

ANSWER: Justice Douglas made it up out of thin air.

Here's
the history of it. Planned Parenthood was involved from the beginning,
probably with the collusion of at least two Justices. In 1961 there was a
case called Poe v. Ullman involving contraception that was dismissed by
the Supreme Court because there hadn't even been any adjudication, no
law had been enforced or broken, and there was nothing for them to
uphold or overturn. Pretty simple, right? Get this: Justice Harlan
issued a dissenting opinion - from the losing side - that in his opinion
legal restrictions on contraception represented an invasion of privacy
into an individual's personal life. Now, however thin this looks, this
was the pre-ordained "precedent" to be built upon, because Justices
don't like to be seen breaking entirely new ground; they need SOMETHING,
however lame, to build upon. It's much easier to rewrite the
Constitution while pretending to uphold it. So with this losing-side,
dissenting, pure personal opinion, Planned Parenthood was then able to
say "hey, we got ourselves a precedent, man."

Planned Parenthood
then found a way to be arrested so they could mount another challenge to
the law, and wound up again before the Supreme Court. In the 1665
Griswold v. Connecticut, the right to privacy became Constitutional Law,
thanks to Douglas. He wrote in the decision striking down the legal
prohibition on selling contraceptives that "specific guarantees in the
Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those
guarantees that help give them life and substance."

Huh?

If
you don't know what a penumbra formed by an emanation is, don't feel
like the Lone Ranger. Neither did Douglas. It was his way of implying
that Supreme Court Justices could and can imagine non-existent Bill-Of-Rights rights into being. There was no legal reasoning here, just naked personal opinion, pure and simple.

For
the record, a penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial
shadow in an eclipse, or the edge of a sunspot, and, alternatively, is a
way to describe something as unclear or fuzzy. Emanation is a
scientific term for a gas that comes from radioactive decay, or,
alternatively, it could mean an "emission."

The words are typical
of Materialist / Atheist attempts to obfuscate and cover the truth in
the presence of non-Materialists and / or Theists who might publicly
argue, if they could figure out what had just been said.

This was
either a dumb-assed decision, or an evil one; I'll let you decide. This
was not the decision of brilliant legal minds whose lofty legal
language is beyond the comprehension of us lowly hoi polloi. Dumb-assed
decisions are not made by brilliant legal minds; dumb-assed decisions
are made by dumb-asses. The alternative possibility is that it was
planned that way all along, which would make the majority on the Court,
clearly, evil, and destructive of our Constitution. This decision was no different than Dred Scott.

Douglas
even manipulated the facts in the case to invent his new Constitutional
right. At question was a doctor-patient relationship, but Douglas'
opinion was framed around a non-existent, trumped-up husband-wife
relationship, and even raised the imaginary specter of sex police, with
the phrase "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of
the marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?"
even though nothing in the entire case was remotely related to police
searching anything at all, or even to marital privacy. After Douglas'
dumb-assed quote on emanations and penumbras, this is, perhaps his
second-most famous and most often repeated quote, which has been used in
a lot of “new Constitutional law” cases since, from pro-abortion to
pro-sodomy. More new precedence for immoral groups like Planned Parenthood. Ain't precedence wonderful?

And
then there were the arguments and the obvious perjury that were
considered in this case. The NARL (National Abortion Rights League) and
Dr. Bernard Nathanson admittedly lied to the Court in their testimony
regarding "5,000 to 10,000 deaths per year" due to illegal abortions.
Clearly a flagrant lie. The ends justify the means. (In 1972, the year
before Roe, 39 women died from illegal abortions.) So, why were they
not charged and convicted of perjury? Because that is a charge that is
strictly reserved for Party opposition only. The Court itself
lied. Justice Blackmun: "Roe against Wade was not such a revolutionary
opinion at the time." That was a lie. Justice Ginsberg said that the
radical decision of Roe v. Wade was largely unnecessary because society
was already moving in that direction on its own. Another lie.

Note that a right to privacy was not to be found in the Constitution or anywhere in previously legislated federal law. That makes this Court established legal precedent New Law, un-legislated, not originated by Congress and not signed by a President, and it is therefore illegal and unconstitutional. It was Interpreted into being by the Court, out of thin air.

Abortion Law. 1973 Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. Abortion is not to be found in Article One Section Eight, nor was there any previously existing federal legislated abortion law, so again, the cases should not have even been heard. See Abortion in America for the details. It was out of constitutional scope for the federal government. Thus, the Court unconstitutionally established un-legislated, un-signed, un-representative New Law by route of establishing case law legal precedent.

Sodomy Law. 1986 Browers v Hardwick; the Court upheld Georgia State Sodomy law. 2003 Lawrence v Texas; the Court struck down Texas' same sex sodomy law. The Court never should have even heard either case. Sodomy is not listed in Article One Section Eight nor is it represented in legislated federal law. That makes this Court established legal precedent New Law,
un-legislated, not originated by Congress and not signed by a President,
and it is therefore illegal and unconstitutional. It was Interpreted into being by the Court, out of thin air.

Obamacare Law. 2010 Affordable Care Act; 2012 upheld by Supreme Court. Neither health care nor insurance are to be found in Article One Section Eight, and so Obamacare is out of Constitutional scope for the federal government in the first place. Members of both houses of Congress admitted to not having read the bill before voting to approve it. All sorts of arm twisting, rule changes and borderline illegal shenanigans were employed to barely get it passed in Congress. The Supreme Court unconstitutionally rewrote part of it in order to "interpret" it into being somehow "Constitutional". Every member of Congress who voted for it, the President who signed it, and every member of the Supreme Court who voted to uphold it, thereby violated their own oaths of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. A glaringly obvious impeachable offense. As a legal precedent, Obamacare very nearly trashed the whole Constitution.

Sodomite "Marriage" and Obamacare II. 2015 Supreme Court decisions that "surprised" everybody, for some reason. Sodomy is defined as anal or oral sex, bestiality or any other non-procreative sex. It is promoted by Cultural Marxism for the obvious reason that it leads to the destruction of culture, and the ultimate goal of Marxism is the overthrowing of all social institutions, as it says in its Manifesto. Again, marriage is not to be found in Article One Section Eight, and there was no related existing legislated federal law, so once again, socially destructive, unconstitutional New Law was interpreted into being. Just as predictable as sunrise.

A Court gone wild, and Candidates without a clue.

Can anyone show me a candidate for high office or a holder of high office who wants to do anything other than modify or correct or improve or or fix or repeal and replace any of these unconstitutional laws that should not exist in the first place? Why do some of them even entertain the idea of going through the rigmarole and complex political process of repealing any of them, or legislating against them, or amending the Constitution, instead of quite simply declaring them to be unconstitutional, which they clearly are, and thus null, void and no law, effective immediately.

That's what the Court did in 1803 Maybury v Madison, the landmark case that established the principle of Judicial Review. The Court declared a legislated law to be unconstitutional, null and no law from that day on. Judicial Review did not exist until that precedent.

The only thing necessary for a landmark case establishing a similar principle of Presidential Review is a President who will take any one or all of the example unconstitutional precedents above and declare it to be unconstitutional, null and no legal precedent from that day on.

The only thing necessary for a landmark case establishing a similar principle of Congressional Review is a Congress who will take any one of all of the example unconstitutional precedents above and declare it to be unconstitutional, null and no legal precedent from that day on.

If legislated law is subject to Judicial Review, then a legal precedent is subject to Congressional or Presidential Review, and a Presidential Executive Action is subject to Congressional and Judicial Review.

Very simple; nothing to it. There is nothing tough about this. Once we are back under the protection of our Constitution, if we ever are, and once we have a Congress composed of a majority of men of high principle, if we ever do, those who voted to legislate unconstitutional law and those on the Court who voted to uphold it could be impeached from office, and replaced by principled real Constitutionalists.

The Court is currently composed of four absolutely anti-American Justices who are always absolutely certain to vote right down the Marxocrat Party line, always, with no deviation. Ruth Bader Ginsburgh, Elana Kegan, Sonia Sotamayor and Stephen Breyer may always, always be depended upon to advance moral depravity and oppose Judao-Christian morality, and to advance Marxist redistributionism at the expense of private property. Never any deviation there. They always vote together; they always vote the same; they always vote in favor of the Marxocrat Party agenda. Which is to say, they always vote in opposition to the clear wording of the Constitution.

John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy are baseless, amoral, unprincipled men who drift with the political wind, for whom the Constitution, if it is considered at all, is of less importance than popular political opinion of the moment. They are unpredictable, as are all men guided by impulse rather than solid principle.

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito are the only current highly principled Constitutionalists on the Court. A clear minority.

What makes a civilization?

To be civilized is to be raised up from primitive, savage or barbarian status, into increased valuing of art, science and industry. Civilization is cultural refinement; it is refinement of thought accompanied by an increasing appreciation of culture itself. Science, technology and industry advance in civilization through written language, recorded history and the never-ending increase in learning afforded by the written word.

The greatest of all civilizing factors for a culture is a commonly held and highly moral behavioral standard for that culture. A highly moral cultural standard is the one unique quality found in the most successful and longest lasting cultures.

The commonly held moral standard of the United States of America is, exactly, of the American Judao-Christian Ethos, descendent of the ethos once common to all of Western Civilization. That commonly held moral standard comes out of the religion of the American Culture, which is, Christian, in many denominational forms.

What is the purpose of law in a civilized society?

Even in the most highly civilized societies, and especially in a self-governing society such as the USA, law is still required to keep the whole culture on the tracks and within the bounds of the commonly held cultural moral standard. Recognizing that the world is imperfect and that evil exists, law is therefore required to protect the moral majority from the immoral minority. Whenever immorality is allowed to predominate, the whole culture will crash. In a self-governing culture - meaning rule by fixed law rather than rule by man - the high morality of the citizenry is an absolute necessity for the continued life of the culture. When cultural morality breaks down, the whole civilization breaks down with it. When the people are no longer willing to live within the law, there is no law, there is no recognizable culture, and there is no civilization.

"You can't legislate morality" says the moral relativist. The hell you can't. Morality is exactly and precisely what must be legislated. And morality comes out of religion, whether the moral relativists like it or not. Where do they think our government ever got the idea that murder, or stealing, or whatever, ought to be against the law in the first place? See the Legislating Morality page.

Demonized "Social Issue" moral laws, which are all sexual, are all local or state issues anyway, not subject to federal law because they are not covered in the Constitution. And there is a wide and wild variation of localities where such things as sodomy, abortion, dope, gambling, prostitution, etc., are quite legal, and even advertised. If you don't believe me, go to San Francisco or Orlando where they encourage and celebrate sodomy. Go to Colorado and smoke dope. Or go to Las Vegas where they encourage and celebrate gambling and prostitution, and where they even advertise that they won't blackmail you, saying "What happens, here stays here". No, really. Seriously. If you can't trust the open advertisement of the government of a whorehouse, who can you trust?

What is the goal of the Marxocrat Party? (I mean Marxism)

The ultimate goal of Marxism-Leninism is the end of soveriegn nations, the end of religion, the end of the normative family, the end of the concept of private property, and, "the forcible
overthrow of all existing social conditions". The end of all existing culture and cultural institutions. Collectivization of everything. A New World Order.

What is the ultimate goal of Gramski's Cultural Marxism and the work of the Frankfurt School? The collectivization of thought. The spread of delusional belief throughout society, beginning with the youngest children, and advancing delusional beliefs throughout all of higher university education. The demoralizing, i.e., making immoral, of a whole culture, from within, through education, news reporting and entertainment. Capitalizing on the fact that, if a man can be taught (or deluded) to tolerate sodomy in his culture, he can be taught to tolerate anything at all, to his own destruction.

The path to the destruction of religion is through the destruction of the religion's morality. Religion itself is the next target. Mark my words.

The glaringly obvious evil intent of the President and his Party.

I really can't believe more people don't see all this for what it is, this deep into a second term of an obviously anti-American President. He is not stupid; he is not naive; he is not merely inexperienced; he is not in over his head. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is a Marxist-Leninist. He is rabidly opposed to Constitutional America. Every single thing he has done in office has been harmful to some part of the American nation, be it the Constitution itself, the morality of the people, religious liberty, freedom of speech, racial tensions, border security, national security, the economy, the currency, police relations, promoting sexual perversion, jobs, you name it. It's obvious. He intends to bring us down.

He negotiates with and is friendly to our deadliest enemies, and he alienates and insults our closest allies. He not only consorts with Islamic Jihadists, he has Jihadist Moslem Brotherhood members in our government among his closest national security advisers. And it's not as if he were ignorant of who they are. He is one of them. And it's not the first time Islam and Marxism joined hands against a common enemy.

The Ottomans allied with Germany in World War I. Hitler and Haj al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, formed a partnership in World War II. Whatever differences there may be between today's Marxists and today's Jihadists, they both have a common enemy to unite against: Us. And Israel. He hates Christianity and Jews, and so do they. He hates America, and so do they. He hates Israel, and so do they.

He just keeps taunting us and hoping for an excuse to use force to put down an instigated rebellion, and take over. He has demonstrated how he can use the word nigger, but you cannot, taunting free speech for me, but not for thee. He lights up the White-house in rainbow colors to publicly celebrate sodomy after the latest Supreme Court corruption of the Constitution.

Am I the only guy in the world who sees him for who he is?

Do not think America cannot be brought down.

All the worst atrocities committed against God and man came to be in the 20th century, by Marxists and Moslems. By anti-Christians and anti-Jews. If you think it cannot happen here, you are mistaken. You cannot "Love" these people into repentance and conversion. You cannot peacefully demonstrate or nonviolently resist, thinking, they cannot arrest everybody. Yes, they can. History proves it. Millions have been arrested, millions have disappeared, millions have been enslaved, millions have been exterminated. We're talking about Evil here, not your neighbor. Not someone you can understand. Not someone civilized. They are barbarians.

They will happily crucify you so that the birds can begin feeding on you before you die. They will put your head on a pike, rape your wife and sell your children. They are the ones our President consorts with. His goal is theirs - the end of America.

It's obvious.

And the Republicrats have vowed to not impeach him.

It's up to us, in the next election, if we make it that far.

Added Friday 7/24/2015

Gay Priest Cavalcade

In this Church Militant offering we see that Cultural Marxism has invaded the Church, too, and made it's mark. When ordained clerics join the cause of evil, or, at best, see nothing wrong with evil, from inside the very institution formed by God to save us from evil, the institution itself is put at risk.

Notice the Rainbow Flag, and remember, every time and every place you see it. Companies and organizations and retail stores and governments and localities who fly that flag favor sodomy over Christianity, and oppose Christianity in support of sodomy. Have nothing to do with them.

They deny nature in favor of the unnatural. They deny science, in claiming homos are born homo. They deny reality in claiming genders are other than what they are. They deny mathematics in claiming homosexuality is more than 2% of the whole population. The destroy the normative family, in promoting perverted fatherless / motherless "families". They deny Scripture, in claiming sexual sin is not sin.

Have nothing to do with them.

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click a footnote link to see the gory details.)

As usual I agree with what you wrote and also learned some new things. I found it very interesting the history of the colonies regarding the different religions and how the separation of church and state was formed. Also you wrote about the Supreme Court. I can't understand why it can pass into law just about anything and it's not challenged. Like the unholy same sex stupidity. Why is the House of Representatives not even making a showing of rejecting it?! It is interesting to read that Presidential candidate Ben Carson has questioned this very subject--say that the House could fight it. Here is a quote from him recently: Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, who acknowledged on Friday that the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling is “the law of the land,” seems to be retooling his position, telling Iowa talk radio host Simon Conway later in the very same day that Congress could pass a “creative” law to “negate” the court’s decision.

When Conway asked Carson if he thought the decision was “a done deal,” Carson replied that it was not.

“I hope it will be revisited because the reason that we have separation of powers is to prevent runaway courts, runaway executive branch, runaway legislative branch,” he said. “The laws are made by the legislative branch. And, you know, you can make a law to negate virtually anything, you just have to be creative in the way that you do it. So no, I don’t think it’s over by any stretch of the imagination.”

Carson added that if he were to become president, he “would certainly get involved” in undoing the marriage decision because although he wants to “respect everybody and let everybody do what they want to do,” if “everybody gets the right to change things for their group” that will lead to “chaos.”

Carson also told Conway that the founding fathers certainly did not intend to have “people who are appointed and not elected making decisions about the lifestyle of the people.”

Why "revisit" it when it could be simply declared unconstitutional, null and void. Very simple, nothing to it. If the Court does that to legislated law, and it does, then Congress or the President can do that to Court established legal precedent. But the other two co-equal branches are either not smart enough to do it, or they are too evil to do it.

All 3 branches are corrupt to the point of refusing to make a distinction between our rights and our liberties and, thus, are traitors and should be tried for high treason against our constitutional Republic.

That the Roe v Wade decision was found "in the shadow of a penumbra" is indeed very dishonest. I pray it will be overturned in due time.

Thanks also for listing the times SCOTUS has acted unconstitutionally in creating law. I was looking for this recently, wanting to inform someone on facebook (which is quite rainbow-ish these days).

Thanks for providing some sanity in this ever-increasing world of chaos. God is in control, and we know who wins in the end!God bless.

Date: Thu Jul 02 2015From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Magdalen:

This shows how rapidly English "evolves" when over-educated (indoctrinated?) elitists are in charge of updating the dictionary. Even an illegitimate, abusive use of a word eventually becomes listed among the possible definitions of the misused word. So now, thanks to Douglas' dumb-assed obfuscation of what he was doing, "a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government" suddenly becomes a valid part of the definition of the abused word. It would have been more accurate to explain it as "a purposeful obfuscation of a legal interpretation", and maybe name it after Douglas.

Penumbra: A Douglas Obfuscation of truth.

Regards,

Vic

Language and Tone Statement

Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to just stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our high Roman Catholic and Constitutional American standards of Truth, logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, obscene, blindly & doggedly anti-Catholic, anti-American, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, be prepared to back it up, keep it clean, keep it civil, and it will be published. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the Hard Left is what it always was, the New Leftist Liberals are what they are, and the Internet is what it is.

"Clickbait" advertising links are not acceptable for posting here.

If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elitist Culturally Marxist Pure Authoritarians cannot and will not tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their rigid authoritarian, anti-equality, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-property, hedonistic, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, pro-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-male, sexist, pro-homosexual, anti-heterosexual, anti-white, racist, anti-Western, anti-American, Globalist, anti-Nation, blatantly immoral, totally intolerant and bigoted point of view.

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Silence in the face of evil is speaking. "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!
Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten
because of silence." Saint Catherine of Siena

“An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is
suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of
secret complicity.” – Pope Felix III

“Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creatures.
What you are in God's sight is what you are and nothing more”—Justice Clarence Thomas

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects redemption." Pope Saint John Paul the GreatDOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men-when we can do it-is no less a sin than to encourage them." Pope St. Felix III

If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the governemt is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then
there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning,
and America has lost its grounding and its very purpose for being. Anti-American-Court

Live Interviews

"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics." Pope Pius V

"All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics." Pope St. Pius X

Click the image above topublish your essay or article here,to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles andReprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

Still Time To Get It Right. “Once you understand the role of energy in everything, you can begin to appreciate why there's simply nothing more important to get right. Energy is at the root of everything. If you have sufficient energy, anything is possible. But without it, everything grinds to a halt.” Chris Martenson

The Heresy of Chrislam. Those claiming that the “Allah” of Islam’s Qu’ran and Yahweh or God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are one and the same are missing one glaring point: GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input. Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.

NewsletterCatholic American ThinkerFree E-zine Subscription

Email

You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you theCatholic American ThinkerNewsletterand absolutely nothing else.

Treachery and Treason PagesAll the sneaky, underhanded ways that Evil undoes natural goodness, by convincing good men, first that nothing is black and white; second, that there are many, many shades of gray; and third and finally, that bad is good, and good is bad.

"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII

"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi

Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston
Churchill

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

“ … for I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush in
the year of our Lord 1800. The context
involved resistance to any form of Christianity or Deism legally imposing
itself throughout the USA. We must wonder what he might say
about our current government's forced imposition of strict secularism – i.e.,
anti-theism – throughout the USA. I submit that legally enforced secularism of society, like theocracy, like Marxism,
and like Islam, is, precisely, a form of tyranny over the mind of man.Nothing good can come from the religious cleansing of Judaeo-Christian society. Government imposed secularism is just another form of theocracy.